Conquer Club

This category is for suggestions which will make the game more enjoyable for all. I highly doubt that anything will be changed in the way of game rules which EXPERIENCED players have been playing for years and continue to enjoy playing!

Just step back and consider that one for a second.

Now, you can continue to fight this useless, pointless battle...

When you get beat by two teammates who deploy on the same player, I suppose you'll consider that a loophole that's being exploited and start a thread about it here. Most noobs just play, learn, and adapt their strategies; you guys would rather change the rules than get better, it seems.

The Neon Peon wrote:Alright
1. that taking bombarding for a card makes the game boring because you just sit and do nothing for a long time (not yours, but stated)
2. instructions imply that you should not get spoils for bombardment
3. bombarding for spoils makes no sense since you do not get anything by bombarding a territory, and only if you take over it

Cool. I've copied and pasted them and had a tinker. [Could you do the same for mine]. With a slight change in order I get ....

1. [was two] The instructions explicitly state that you should not get spoils for bombardment.
2. [was three] Spoils refers to the pillaging of an encampment or territory previously owned by the enemy, and requires troop movement into said territory.
3. [new] The strategy of repeated bombarding of the same territory is a clever use of the game code.
4a. [new] The reward versus risk ratio for bombardment is too high.
4b. [new] The reward versus risk ratio for repeat bombardment is too high.
5a. [was one]Bombarding for spoils makes the game boring because you just sit and do nothing for a long time.
5b. [variation on what was one]Repeated bombarding of the same territory for spoils makes the game boring because you just sit and do nothing for a long time.
5c. [another variation on what was one]Making the exact same move for upwards of half a dozen turns in a row is a poorly designed game.

E.G.

iambligh> Well, whats the harm in tricking noobs into playing poorly? oh, thats right, they stop playing and your player base stagnates.

The Neon Peon wrote:I personally would not expect it to become an enemy when I bombard it.

We agree that a neutral isn't going to turn to an enemy after bombardment!

The Neon Peon wrote:A neutral is not your opponent last I checked.

Again, we agree!

The Neon Peon wrote:I think they took it as common sense that if the territory is a neutral it either
1. reconverts to neutral
2. nothing happens

both are logical assumptions, since what else will happen?

Are they?

1. You can't re-convert something! I know what you are saying, I think I understand the dot to dot you've made but that join isn't a logical one. As you say, its a common sence - however common sence and the rules don't quite match.
[I'm not saying that's bad or good; I'm just saying that's the way I see it.]

2. but if nothing happens then nothing should happen! So, whether you choose logic or common sence, nothing should include not getting a reward.

Aside - Could "2" be the route of the issue? Different use of common sence and logic between people.

E.G.

iambligh wrote:This category is for suggestions which will make the game more enjoyable for all. I highly doubt that anything will be changed in the way of game rules which EXPERIENCED players have been playing for years and continue to enjoy playing!

Just step back and consider that one for a second.

Now, you can continue to fight this useless, pointless battle...

When you get beat by two teammates who deploy on the same player, I suppose you'll consider that a loophole that's being exploited and start a thread about it here. Most noobs just play, learn, and adapt their strategies; you guys would rather change the rules than get better, it seems.

Are you implying that I am a noob or an inferior player because I don't think the current system makes sense? And because I don't think its functioning as intended?

I don't know why this suggestion has turned into so many personal arguments. The people who bombard neutral armies to get cards are not cheaters, they are merely playing as the game allows them to. The people who feel the rules make more sense than the current system are not noobs, they are just people with different opinions than you.

Let's all stop the personal attacks, I think the arguments for both sides are well known by now and have been well stated. If theres anything new to add feel free, but lets keep it clean.

iambligh wrote:This category is for suggestions which will make the game more enjoyable for all. I highly doubt that anything will be changed in the way of game rules which EXPERIENCED players have been playing for years and continue to enjoy playing!

Just step back and consider that one for a second.

O.K., times up!

You've just explained why this thread IS needed. Everyone contributing wants to make the game more enjoyable for all and we recognise that experienced players are getting something different out of it from others. We just don't agree whether that's right.

We are getting somewhere. Whether this all leads to a game change is another matter but at least it has a chance to recognise where the issues are.

What ever your beliefs are you should never lose sight of a key issue in playing a competitive game or sport: You can't play by yourself!

E.G.

* Stop sniggering at the back, I said by not with!

What I'm trying to say is:

This forum serves a purpose, I agree, but there's a snowball's chance in hell that bombardment rules will be changed. I tried to make an example by saying you could make an argument that forting your troops to an ally could somehow be considered a "loophole", because that player wouldn't have the means to accrue so many troops on his own, or deploying on non-contiguous regions could be considered "too unrealistic", lol, because in a real battle you wouldn't be able to blah blah blah...

The bottom line is, this is a game, and the rules of this game allow for acquiring cards, or "spoils" by bombarding neutrals, and more importantly, the current rules work very well for too many people for them to be changed. I'm sorry that they don't work for you, but that will pretty much be the end of it.

iambligh wrote:What I'm trying to say is:

This forum serves a purpose, I agree, but there's a snowball's chance in hell that bombardment rules will be changed. I tried to make an example by saying you could make an argument that forting your troops to an ally could somehow be considered a "loophole", because that player wouldn't have the means to accrue so many troops on his own, or deploying on non-contiguous regions could be considered "too unrealistic", lol, because in a real battle you wouldn't be able to blah blah blah...

The bottom line is, this is a game, and the rules of this game allow for acquiring cards, or "spoils" by bombarding neutrals, and more importantly, the current rules work very well for too many people for them to be changed. I'm sorry that they don't work for you, but that will pretty much be the end of it.

The gameplay allows for it. The rules say it doesn't.

So let's say that by some miracle I'm right, because everyone is used to it they shouldn't change it... Lame excuse.

The gameplay behind bombard needs to be changed.

If you don't like it, don't play it. (oh that's sounds familar...)

ronin56003 wrote:The gameplay allows for it. The rules say it doesn't.

So let's say that by some miracle I'm right, because everyone is used to it they shouldn't change it... Lame excuse.

The gameplay behind bombard needs to be changed.

If you don't like it, don't play it. (oh that's sounds familar...)

Or.

The rules need to be adjusted to be made more clear as the game is working exactly as intended in this case.

At least we can agree that something needs to change to avoid this in the future.

Yeah. Apparently, the rules need to be clarified.

Bones2484 wrote:At least we can agree that something needs to change to avoid this in the future.

O.K..... Rather than go for a quick fix [changing the rules to suit one party], we should revisit where we disagree.

Neon posted the "yes" lobby's list and I had a tinker with them.

Could someone from the "No" lobby take a look this please. Its my attempt at summarising your side of the argument. It would really help if you could keep it concise. Save adding the "whys" for later.

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:Thank you, Neon. Here's my go at your side of the argument.

1. We don't want to change the bombardment rules.
2. There's a risk to bombarding and it should be rewarded.
3. Its a good strategy.
4. People are ignorant if they do not know how to use the re-bombardment startegy.
5. Its not clear how changing the rules would effect each map.
6. If you don't like the bombardment rules you should go and play on some other map.
7. Bombardment is an advanced game startegy.

What have I missed? Would you like to refine it!

I'll have a ponder at yours.

E.G.

There's nothing wrong with bombardment rules, so they doesn't need to be changed.

Is that concise enough?

If you'd like to propose a modified set of rules where cards can only be earned by occupying a new region as a NEW OPTION for games, then this is certainly the place to do it. The proprietors of the site are always looking for new features to add which players might enjoy, but I can't imagine they would CHANGE something that a great many players on the site already enjoy.

Please consider that.

While I don't want to lose sight of your helpful suggestion, I can't really agree that

iambligh wrote:There's nothing wrong with bombardment rules, so they doesn't need to be changed.

There's been ten pages of mails on this topic, and there appears to be an agreement that the status quo isn't the best place to be.

Some of us, from both sides, have been looking past the main argument. Would you care to consider that and join in?

iambligh wrote:There's nothing wrong with bombardment rules, so they doesn't need to be changed.

That pretty much sums it up.

The only thing you left out was that the instructions could be clearer.

The Neon Peon wrote:

iambligh wrote:There's nothing wrong with bombardment rules, so they doesn't need to be changed.

The only thing you left out was that the instructions could be clearer.

Sounds like your telling us that rather than risk following the argument through, you'd like to just say its all very well but things should just stay the way they are. Takin the easy way out?!

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

iambligh wrote:There's nothing wrong with bombardment rules, so they doesn't need to be changed.

The only thing you left out was that the instructions could be clearer.

Sounds like your telling us that rather than risk following the argument through, you'd like to just say its all very well but things should just stay the way they are. Takin the easy way out?!

What are you talking about?

Look, no one except for about 2 people (which are 2 in this thread) has ever raised an issue with bombardment.
Many people play bombardment and more and more maps are coming out of the foundry with this feature.
People like this feature and no one has ever requested a change to it.

Now you come along with some argument that bombardment does not fit in with the instructions and request that the whole feature of the site be changed just to make it fit with some random term legal issues force us to use. What do you think will change, bombardment or the instructions?

You have not even provided a practical reason as to why the feature should be changed. All your arguments are based off the wording in the instructions etc. My point being is that, no this feature will not be changed. 0% chance, so why even post in this thread? I did it to see if I could get the fact that changing a popular feature of the site when only a small minority wants the change is a bad thing. But I have realized that I won't get anywhere until you get a little older.

See you 'round.

The Neon Peon wrote:that I won't get anywhere until you...

Do you really want to go down that path, again.

The Neon Peon wrote:"popular feature"

The number of games played on Feudal War is huge. I have no idea about other bombardnment maps. But don't confuse the number of games with popular since its the number of players that's important.

We've come this far. If there is a good solution - even if that solution is not to change anything - then find it. If you are so conficent that things won't change then why not follow the argument through and see. Or are you just too worried that you'll prove yourself wrong?

Then why haven't the mods fixed the instructions? 2 sec change... I'll shut up then.

ronin56003 wrote:Then why haven't the mods fixed the instructions? 2 sec change... I'll shut up then.

Because they take forever to change anything? You must not have been here long.

Bones2484 wrote:Because [the mods] take forever to change anything?

In that case we've got plenty of time to go around the houses and see if we can get to an agreement.

E.G.

BTW, nice puchline, Bones

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:Do you really want to go down that path, again.

Not down that road.

The soil of a man's heart is stonier

There's always "up the garden path"

Don't change it this is helpful in a Feudal War Game

iambligh wrote:If you'd like to propose a modified set of rules where cards can only be earned by occupying a new region as a NEW OPTION for games, then this is certainly the place to do it. The proprietors of the site are always looking for new features to add which players might enjoy, but I can't imagine they would CHANGE something that a great many players on the site already enjoy.

You conveniently ignored the most important part of my submission (quoted above). Would you mind addressing that?

ronin56003 wrote:Then why haven't the mods fixed the instructions? 2 sec change... I'll shut up then.

No Mods have access to web-site editing, just the Forum area. Webs-site endint is a Lack thing.


--Andy